nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comments
From: Jessica Yu <jyy () merit edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 11:44:38 -0400
Perhaps. My biggest concern was that the Merit paper would be construed as the -only- way an ATM NAP would work. They clearly did not indicate there were potential choices nor did they indicate the assumptions that were made for their test.
Bill, now I doubt if you read the paper carefully or not. First of all, this paper does not design the ATM-NAP architecture BUT is a ROUTING DESIGN for the planned ATM-NAP architecture. Please don't confuse these two different issues. For the planned ATM-NAP architecture (i.e. RFC1490/AAL5) with the current availability of the RS's (i.e. SUN) ATM interface product, what other choices do we have to connect the RS and do NAP routing at this time frame? --Jessica - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Comments bmanning (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments Jessica Yu (Aug 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Comments Liang T. Wu (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments bmanning (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments Jessica Yu (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments Bill Manning (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Jessica Yu (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments bmanning (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Aug 30)
- Re: Comments Bill Manning (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Sean Doran (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Bill Norton (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Joseph W. Stroup (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments bmanning (Aug 31)